High School Labels

I found the essay on High School labels to be somewhat comical and rediculous. "I don't go around the other group because I'm scared of being one or getting kicked off the team." Yes that would be sarcasm. My high school days were in a bogus Chicago suburb called Plainfield, many know this city because it got tore up by a tornado in 1990.

At my school all the labeled people meshed together and quite often the jocks were themselves burnouts. I know, I partied with them. Yet I was not a jock, I was not a burnout either. I simply hung around the kids that pissed everyone off by listening to metal music and wearing black, rebelious yes. .and some of us were burnouts. I know, the cool house to hang out at had a kid that grew hydro in his basement. From what I remember he had little success with it.

Even though I was rebelious metal head that hung out with burnouts I still had many friends on the cheerleading squad, football team and in the band. The whole deal with lunch room's was not apparent at my school as well. We chose a table that was free on the first days of school then claimed it ours for the rest of the term, no matter where it was in the lunch room. And on a final note any uprising between the jocks/ burnouts were easily settled.

I know because a friend of mine called the jocks battling apes in the homecoming news paper and when I heard them plot to jump him after school I told them they weren't going to do it. One big guy turns from talking to his honey and asks why so then I explained his ties with the school wouldn't allow him to fight because then he'd get kicked off his precious football team.

Title

High School as I knew it was divided in the extreme into the music students and students who did not do choir or band. Each sect had individual lunches and seperate sheduals. There was also a tendency among the music group to enjoy school more and excel in the classroom. These "overgroups" gave way to smaller units. In the non-music crowd there were the Jocks, Hicks, and Pot-heads. Inversely, the other half of the student body was made up of Drama Students, English Nerds, Preps, and Band Geeks.

In my school these cliques were inforced by the shirts you wore. Drama students wore production t-shirts, sporting the many productions they'd been in. Hicks wore flannel polos with the sleeves torn off and a john deer hat perched on their temple. Jocks wore shirts from the championships. But none were as obvious as the Preps, with their American Eagle, Hollister, Calvin Klein, and Aeropostale clothing.

Humans have an inherent need to label everything. It seems we have a problem with ambiguity. The undefineable scares us, its the same reason we have externalized our fears throughout history in order to explain the unexplainable. I am talking about the concept of witches, devil-worhsipers, ghosts, and all other supernatural extrema. These are examples of what happens, witches in primary, when individuals do not fall into "popular" categories. Yes, the example is quite archaic, but the same pathology holds true in society today. We are much more accepting of an individual if they fit nicely into a stereotype of some sort.

Labels in Croton Harmon High School

The town that I lived in for high school was a very small suburb of the New York City.  The city was only a half hour away, and I spent a lot of time there.  The city is crazy, and filled with so many different people everywhere you look.  Well only a half hour away in Croton-on-Hudson NY, the Croton Harmon High School is entirely different.  Rather than seeing many people all interacting, you see small groups that keep secluded.  There were the few exceptions who either did not belong to a group, or those who did but still branched out to others, but for the most part, we would keep very secluded.  I was one of the kids who reached out to other groups, but "label" that I had was a "theatre kid".  I was also considered a problem,.  I kept fighting for Croton Harmon High School to be even better than it currently is.  I would argue that we need to spend less of frivolous things, and put that money towards, say, a better arts program.  This gained me the label of being "anti-school spirited".  In actuality I cared greatly about the school, but felt that it could, and should be better than it was.  But those are the labels that I gained, and even though I branched out to other groups of friends, some groups would have nothing to do with me because of my anti-school spirit label.  I would argue that I care greatly, and just want there to be improvements, but due to the label, they would hear none of it.  I was not the only person to hit road blocks due to my labial, manny were.  But the separation of groups by these labels is very real, and very bad.  High school would be a much better place if people let go of those labels.     

cliques

152 graduates walked onto our football field next to me the day of graduation, all of which I would consider my friends. It would be ridiculous to pretend that they were all my very good friends, however friends nonetheless. We didn't have much of an outcasted group. I could tell you the names of all 152 students in my graduating class, and I'd like to beleive they would be able to tell you mine. We of course had some that loved their weed, and some others that made their clarinets their bffs, but the majority of people didn't look down on anyone else for what they chose to do in their spare time. I'm not ignorant, there of course the couple students who felt the need to make themeselves feel better through others humility, but they didn't belong to a certain class and there certainly were only a few of them. Up until after I graduated I had never smoked weed a day in my life, but throughout high school nearly all of my good friends may have been considered "pot heads", while some others may have been looked at as "book worms" but never did any of them feel segregated from one another.

Chicago on the other hand is a different story, Columbia is a story in and of itself. I walk into the school everyday and feel like an outcast, I think maybe we all do. Every person here is pretty different from the next; film students, photography students, fashion students, tv students, etc. In theory the school does the segregating for us (or we to ourselves because we choose our majors). I still don't feel an animosity to other people for being within their own "clique", but I do feel as though I am different from the other students, and with everyone coming from different backgrounds (unlike in high school where we were all virtually the same) we are bound to feel different and sometimes like an outcast. I guess that's a part of life, it helps us grow and adapt to new things.

High School Social Groups 101

I went to a high school in the northern suburbs of Chicago. This school was huge. It consisted of six buildings with three floors connected together and around 4,000 students. Thankfully the school was large enough that we all got our own lockers. What caused us to not use our locker was not our social classification but class location. Anyways, The best place to see all the different social groups was the cafeterias (yes plural), student lounge, and courtyard. No matter which place you went to you could find a wide variety of social groups with the keyword being groups. Like any social group they didn't mix. They would all group together and socialize at any chance they got. The only terms I remember that we used to use for identifying the different groups is jocks, preps, artists, goths, druggies and weirdos. From what I remember female preps didn't sit with the male preps and female jocks only sometimes sat with the male jocks. But the male and female goths, druggies, weirdos and artists always sat together. It was the same with many other in between groups the males and female would sit together but the preps and jocks almost never mixed the two sexes in their groups. There is an exception to this though. When it would get warm out students would go out to the courtyard to eat and that is one of the few times that the male and female preps would come together. After school the common gathering place for the jocks was the gym wing, for the preps it was the student parking lots, artists gathered in the art wing, goths simply disappeared, druggies went to a park that they called 'the log', and the weirdos gathered in the main lobby. It has been so long since I have been in high school. I don't remember much more than that. The only other thing that I can tell you is that I started out as a mild form of a prep and slowly made my way to the weirdos. The weirdos were in to role playing games and anime.

Delaware Schools and Identities

I went to two different high schools in Delaware, a big public school called Caesar Rodney, and a tiny (200 people) Catholic private school called St. Thomas More Academy. At Caesar Rodney, the cliques were very true to their stereotypes. There were more of them, though. There was the jock clique, goth kids, the "gangsters" (if there is such a thing in Dover, Delaware), the scene/straight edge/hardcore kids, the theater kids, and the "nerds" or "inbetweens."  I was probably inbetween there, I got good grades, went to hardcore shows, and was involved in theater. At this school though, the jocks and goth cliques were very exclusive, just like the article's descriptions.

At the school I graduated from, St Thomas More, with only 50 of us in the graduating class, it was very different. Everyone had known eachother and gone to school with eachother since kindergarten since there was only one elementary/middle/high school in southern Delaware. So they did not conform as much to their social identities. There were the hippies who got stoned and listened to music every day, the rich kids who commuted from their beach houses in their new cars every day, the jocks, and the artsy students.

But no one was part of just one group. There were "hippies" on the lacrosse team, rich kids in the plays, jocks in choir, etc. For example, I was accepted as a cheerleader, actress, singer, honor roll student, and anything else I wanted to try or take part in. A girl who is now a senior won an award for her art and was the captain of the field hockey team. So it was easier to talk to everyone and there was less pressure to conform to any one identity. Practically everyone used the same slang and took part in multiple school functions and activities.

I think a big part (aside from everyone knowing eachother for so long) that played into the lack of social classes amongst the students at my private school was that, since we wore uniforms almost every day, we based judgement less on appearance. By the time of year that we could wear our own clothes to school (only on "tag days" and if you paid a certain amount towards a charity), people had already made their first impressions and their personalities were already known on some level.

I guess you could say, on a larger scale, that the St Thomas More students were a clique of their own. While waiting to take the SATs at my old school with people form my new school, I saw my current classmates mixed in with my old ones. I could tell that there was a definite difference that I cannot explain but the acknowledgement between schools was somewhat tense and uncomfortable.

Symbols of Category Membership

When I moved to Chicago to go to High School, I encountered a whole new system of life that I had not experienced before. I grew up in Singapore where drugs were extremely illegal and hard to get your hands on. The social dynamics of my class were more based on various hobbies and interests. For example, there were skateboarders, computer game geeks, jocks, as well as people who floated between the lines. Everyone sort of got along with each other since there weren't that many faces in each grade and it was not uncommon to see the peer groups coerced. When I moved to Chicago in the tenth grade, I attended a high school of around four thousand people, about a thousand per grade. I noticed right away that there definitely existed more boldly drawn lines between cliques. My homeroom was divided amongst jocks, nerds, potheads, metal heads and punk rockers. From the first day onwards, I made friends with the nerds, potheads, and punks. It was apparent that within each of the cliques there existed silent signs of identity. Whether two people from a certain category knew each other or not, it was almost possible to distinguish whether they could be friends just by looking at them. The punk rockers and metal heads would wear band shirts representing the music that they listened to. The potheads could be broken into multiple subcategories, but at the end of the day they would all get along. As for the jocks however, it seemed that they themselves were the ones keeping up their guards of social conformity. In many cases that I witnessed, the jocks tended to isolate themselves if they couldn't find a matching jock to socialize with. I think that many of these communication and compatibility issues associated with peer groups can be boiled down to the idea of interests. The so called "burnouts" seem to understand that they are on common ground with those around them. I believe that this makes it easier for them to relate and expand their ideas and influence across a wider ranged audience. For the jocks however, it is about status and competition, and those factors seem to be more important than really finding true satisfaction in your friendships. Through my experiences in high school, I made friends with people from all different cliques and identities. By the time it was over, we had managed to create a whole new group made up of mismatched personalities and it worked out great.

Labels are over-rated!

Hmmmm...so labels are basically everywhere. I mean if you're from a small town yeah they are probably going to be used a whole lot more than bigger cities but even in Chicago theres groups. I came from Green Bay, Wisconsin and everyone was divided into a group. Our schools were more labeled than the actual individual though. I spent two years at East High School( we were known for the bad reputation of almost having a bomb threat carried out). East was known as the "ghetto" school because there was a majority of lower class students and it was located where most of the city crime took place. I transferred schools junior year and attended Preble. This school was known as the preppy rich-bitch school. It was funny because preble labeled east as ghetto although Preble had much more "hidden"violence and East felt a lot more comfort because of the diversity. There was also West school, known as the "drop-out school", and Southwest known as the "whore school." If you met someone from Preble you figured they came from a wealthy family, played sports, and were overall preppy. If you came from Southwest you were basically a slut.

Unless everyone decides to take time out and look at things from a different perspective or talk to all different people, there will always be labeling. I don't really think it matters though. Labeling is for those who want to group people I could care less if someone wants to label or judge me, its what they might see me as but why should that bother me, or anyone?

An Abstract of Jocks, Cheerleaders, Pot Heads, and Stoners.

I went to three different high schools: first I went to Bolingbrook High School, then I moved over to Romeoville High School, and finally ended up at a new Bolingbrook High School (Yeah they built a new one) During my time at the three schools I noticed a lot about the different social groups or "clicks" that formed, four of these social groups are: jocks, cheerleaders, pot heads, and stoners...

Jocks and Cheerleaders

The classic kids in every high school, and the ones at my high schools were no different from the stereotypical roles they were tied to. Some of these stereotypes include, they date each other (keep in mind though that you always had your cheerleader that was into the "bad boy" and went with a stoner instead), they partied on weekends, and pretty much viewed themselves as the top dogs at the school. There territory was pretty much most of the athletic rooms and fields, minus a few, but they remain true to the classic stereotype that jocks and cheerleaders have always fallen under.

Pot Heads and Stoners

I know they sound like the same thing but there are differences, but lets start out on the similarities, they like weed, they like it a lot. The main difference between the two is motivation in a way... The stoners were the ones that ditched class to smoke, they didn't care what they got in school because they just weren't motivated to. Pot heads on the other hand were the ones who went to class after they smoked, they were the ones who wanted to do good in school, not only that but they also wanted to feel good doing it (hence, weed). The stoner's territory was the park across from the school (and this is focusing on the newer Bolingbrook), as for the pot heads there territory was more so the bathrooms, or the parking lot before school, but never did they ever go to the park... That was where the stoners went.

Bourne Identity

I come from a small town in West Virginia and most of the high schools consolidated the year before I attended them.  In combining two junior high's we had over 5,000 students.  I'm not to sure how many students are in schools in the city's but to me it was an enormous amount.  I am bi-racial and the town I went to school in had all white teenagers from the country.  Even though I'm bi-racial, everyone considered me to be strictly African American.  Everyday of my high school career, I was known as the (pardon my language) "nigger."  I was the only one out of 5,000 students who was of different nationalities.  I wasn't really affiliated with any groups because of these small minded idiots.  95% of these small minded degenerates were considered "Rednecks" who wore Rebel flags, cowboy boots, and spit chewing tobacco all over the school.  There were the "jocks" which I could consider myself as, but just because I played sports.  I didn't hang out with those guys either because they were just immature and their brains lacked the capacity to hold conversations.  There were the "nerds and geeks."  Kids even used the term "whiggers" to identify white kids who tried to act black or act like they were part of a hip hop/rap culture.  Then there were the "freaks" which I got along with the most.  The "freaks" at my high school were the ones who made the highest grades, were the nicest people if you gave them a chance, and the first ones to have your back when something went down.  I still have those same friends today.  The school building was very large and spaced out so everyone had their own particular hallways that were supposedly owned by whoever claimed it.  The cafeteria was the same way also.  The lines to get food were even separated.  After school, in the parking lot, was were you could definitely notice how the groups formed by their individual identities.  The "rednecks" congregated around their monster trucks, the "nerds and geeks" ran to their cars to get away from everything, the "jocks" usually went to practice, and the "freaks" casually chilled in the parking lot and smoked.  This is where most of the fights took place between each group.  Mostly between the "rednecks" and the "freaks."  Usually you can find people in schools that don't really fit or want to fit in with any of these groups, but in my high school, if you weren't in a group you might as well be prepared to defend yourself at all times.  Of course, I didn't fit or want to fit in so I spent most of my time defending myself as an individual.  Even the principals office always thought that I should be the bigger person and walk away, but when 4,999 students push you to the limits, then I don't know what else to do but fight back.  

Coming from a small town and a small highschool, there was a lot of confusion when it came to social classification. There were several people (like my self) who were crossovers, but not necessarily "in-betweens". The jocks were the jocks, certainly, but there are a few jocks who also fit in with other groups. One such jock was very religious and also studious, so he fit in more with us "nerds" in the honors and AP classes. He was also on the WYSE and math teams, definitely not your typical jock, yet a key player on both the football and basketball teams.

I too was a crossover, a "nerd" on the WYSE and math teams, but also the lead in all of the school plays and musicals.

A few other posters already mentioned subgroups, which I can certainly say existed in my highschool. Since I was only a part of 2 groups I only know the details of those groups and not the jocks or the popular kids or the "burnouts".

The academic community definitely had a hierarchy. People in AP classes were different than the ones in simply Honors classes. The WYSE team was also much more prestigious than the math team, and worlds away from the lowly academic bowl team.

conform your identity

That’s what I hated about high school, all the stupid cliques. The main groups people at my high school would categorize themselves in were the jocks, preps, Goths, emos, scene kids, and nerds. People used a lot of different things to reinforce their identity in these groups; what you wore and what you listened to though was the main way people determined what group you belonged to. Take for example the typical emo kid. He/she would usually have long straight hair and the guy’s would swoop their bangs over their eyes. Dress attire was typically skinny jeans or girl jeans if you were a guy, a really tight hawthorne heights or my chemical romance band t, and dark eyeliner. These kids would spend the days wallowing in self-pity discussing how unbearable life is. Drug usage didn’t play that big of a role in which group you belonged in except for the scene kids who were either straightedge or did a lot of coke and pot. I never really fell in to a specific clique, I thought and still think that trying to reinforce you’re identity by dressing and acting like a group of other people defeats the whole point of having your own identity.

The Smoking Bus

When I went to high school I simultaneously attended a technical school to study film and television production. There were two busses that transported kids from the home school over to tech school and back again at the end of the day. Which bus you got on depended on your preference, smoking or non. Although smoking cigarettes is not allowed on yellow school busses it was done throughout high school. For some reason the bus drivers felt it was better to let the kids do what they wanted then actually try to stop them.

Although there was a sort of bond between those who road the smoking bus, there were definitely sub groups. You had your thug/bad ass smoker, the art school types, loners, stoners (who tried lighting up the sticky green a few times), etc, etc. Although we all had our differences there was the common need to smoke a cigarette three hours into the school day that brought us all a little closer for a half hour a day over the course of four years.

What Happens in a Wealthy Ohio Catholic High School

I went to a very small, wealthy Catholic school.  I'm not Catholic, but I went because the school is really well known for the education it provides.  The school was already tiny, so it didn't help that most of the kids in my class, and actually in the entire school were not interested in any of the same things I was.  They were either really religious, really stuck up and into themselves, or really into sports (and nothing else.)  There was only a handful of kids in my school that I enjoyed being around.  I guess we could have been considered the "burnouts."  But we weren't burnouts by any means.  We just weren't friends with the "jocks."  I'm not sure what others referred to us as, but I think I would say that we were the kids who would spend the majority of the school day in the art building and not in the gym.  It's strange because usually in high schools, I would assume that there are "popular" and "unpopular" kids and only a few in-betweens.  But in my high school, there weren't really "popular" kids.  Well, there were, but it wasn't a known group of individuals who were considered "popular."  There were definitely "unpopular" kids, but if you weren't unpopular, you were kind of popular.  Maybe this was because the school was so little.  I don't know.  And I guess the article is similar to my situation in some ways.  For example, some of the "jocks" would want to hang out with us, which was fine, no one minded.  But I don't think any of us would want to hang out with them outside of school.  This was just because, well for me at least, all of the kids who hung out with the "jocks" or who were "jocks" all seemed to be really stuck up and snobby.  Most of the girls at my school were unhappy if they didn't have their Gucci purses and Ugg boots on thier body at all times.  I'm not like that, so I thoroughly did not enjoy being around them and listening to them whine about how their "parents wouldn't let me drive the BMW to school today."  I get irritated very quickly with ungrateful people.  All of my friends appreciated life and art and their friends and family and they are all good people.  None of them were shallow or petty and that's why I liked them.  Plus, they listened to good music.

Labels labels

These days there are so many different groups of people. You cannot really divide people into jocks, burnouts and miscellaneous people. There are tons of groups and subgroups of the stereotypical types of people these days. Preps, metalheads, hippies, punks, rednecks, and nerds are just a few to name. Within those groups there are tons of subgroups as well that would also divide the larger class of people. For instance there are preps who experiment with drugs and those who don't. There is a strong division between these two groups even though they both might dress, talk and carry themselves the same way. Language plays a big role in determining groups of people as well. Within larger groups of people such as hippies there might be some slang that is used by all sorts of different "hippies." However in a smaller group of friends there could be slang that no other "hippies" know because the slang is based on inside information or inside jokes. Accents along with slang can play a role. For instance when it comes to "rednecks," and I am well aware it can be a derogatory term, accent can play a role in determining one's group of people. Some people use similar slang to rednecks but it is the southern accent that might differentiate them from the latter.  So it is not just also what people say but how they say it. There are also words and phrases the sort of overlap all types of teenagers. For instance almost all teenagers overuse the word like. Some use it more than others but even the most unconventional metalhead will let it slip out. In the end language can be an important factor in determining certain groups of people but there are other factors you have to consider as well. 

 

 

Another Blog Assignment.....

In the essay "Symbols of Category Membership" a linguistic anthropologist studied the way young people begin to classify each other – a process that began in junior high school but continued into high school – and how these identifications affect the rest of students’ lives. While “jock” and “burnout” might not be the lingo that you used during that time of your life, did you have similar categories when you were in high school? How did people in your high school express and reinforce their identity? For instance, Eckert looks at how the high schoolers expressed class not just through clothing, drug use, and activities, but through linguistics. Feel free to include some of the typical slang/jargon/or terms that people in the different groups.

Marriage bonds

The traditions of marriage seem to vary from culture to culture. I believe marriage should be the same in all cultures because it allows for a steady family system. However, I do understand cultures that believe it to be not beneficial. In a culture where raising children to carry out the family blood line, marriage is essential. It would present major challenges for children to not know where their roots are. An example of this is found with the British monarchy system. Monarchs are chosen according to their bloodline. Without married parents, knowing where his blood line is rooted is essential.

Love & Marriage

I have always viewed marriage as a very important part of a persons life. I have actually only dated girls that I could see myself marrying. Marriage seems to have been put to the side and seen more as an object. What I mean is marriage doesn't really have the same meaning it used to when my parents were my age. Now and days you see celebrities get married and the next day there are already tabloids about how they're splitting. Marriage is supposed to be a very special experience between two people that love each other. My parents married each other because they loved each other very much. We see people marrying someone for their money (we can look at Anna Nicole but.... she's dead) and then trying to ditch them and take all their money from them. 

Marriage is not supposed to be like that at all. I have always viewed marriage as a very special thing between two people. A lot of people don't realize this but marriage is still very important to some people. And I know there are children right now who have the same morals as I do.

"Married with Children" Its more than just an 80s sitcom

Marriage is a very complex thing now a days.  It has evolved so much over time, and because of that evolution process, today we now have many different beliefs.  Some cultures still follow the rules of an arranged marriage.  Here in America that can seam like a crazy concept.  "I need to get married to someone that my parents picked out for me".  Seems odd to us.  But it is a reality in America.  Maybe no the the same extreme as other places, but it happens.  Anytime your parents try to get you to date the child of one of their friends, thats an arrangement.  If you end up marrying that person, that's kinda like an arranged marriage.  

Here in America, we believe that people should get married for love.  But how about homosexual love.  Many of us fell that homosexuals have no right to get married. That completely contradicts the rule that one should get married for love.  Or how if you fall in love with someone, but you "can't marry them, because your parents always said that you have to marry someone who is jewish.  I know people who are in that exact situation.  Or you cant marry them because of their wealth.  "Mom and dad would never approve".

I am all for marring for love.  That is how I believe it should be done, but the sad truth is that we still hold on to some of the old marriage traditions.  You need to get married to have kids to help run the farm.  You need to get married because the girl is pregnant.  You need to get married to him or her because they can support you.  Marriage is not just about love unfortunately.  

Marriage is a business arrangement.

I think basing marriage off of solely love in an economically deprived community is a terrible decision. When people are in love but have economic troubles, their love can be easily torn apart ending in divorce. If there was not this economic burden, I personally believe a lot of those marriages would still exist. There are so many more factors that go into marriage besides compatibility of two partners. Marriage in many cases can be seen as adding another set of hands to the family and hopefully more once offspring arrive. It ties two families together and builds a little community among them so they can both benefit off of it. Sometimes in the case of dowry, it can be detrimental for a family to be comprised only of daughters. On the other hand with bride prices, in some cases the family giving away a daughter can benefit more. It is not all about money or economic benefits though. A spouse must be compatible with the family it is entering, or else the overall efficiency of the household is hurt. 

DON'T follow your heart!

Could following your heart really be the wrong thing to do?... By the views of some cultures, yes it could possibly be the worse thing you could ever do. Many cultures thrive on marriage that involves no romantic attraction, but is controled by the wealth of the groom, or who works for the father of the bride. So would it be risky, to take one of these cultures and hand them the idea of romantic love?... No, of course not! Many cultures have survived with this version of marriage for a long time, sure throwing the new concept of marriage at the un-romantic cultures might cause them some confusion, but I highly doubt that, romance will destroy their society. Who knows!? Things like romance and love could make their lives better!!!

Sometimes... It just happens.

Personally, I don’t think there is a particular type of a society someone belongs to if they choose not to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage? I haven’t met anyone who specifically chooses to have children outside of marriage. The women I know have involved themselves in a man they had hoped they would get married too. However, the men in their life have ditched them mid way through their pregnancy. At this point, the father of child never accepts his role or stays in the child’s life from a distance. A child will grow up not having a father figure in his/her life and/or having a father figure that visits on occasion. Of course, each individual needs to be taken into account. How one may handle a situation like this may not be the same for others. As for the child, I’m sure a child will be conflicted and have challenges to face in the future. But situations like this create a unique individual. It all depends on how you look at it.

Exotic America

While I was writing my essay based on the Nacirema article I realized that American's aren't any more different than exotic societies.

The question posed indicates that American's don't live in a society where the state is weak/unstable, which may be true, but does not have much influence on the way people marry. While marrying for love is nice ideal, it doesn't always make sense, even (and in some cases, espcially) in America.

For instance, American culture promotes the ideal that anyone can do and be anything they want to be. This encourages many Americans to jump around to different jobs in the process of finding themselves and not settle on one job or career for life. This type of thinking also puts the self first instead of the community. Both of these aspects of American culture tend to make people think of marriage as an indulgence rather than a commitment. Evidence of this kind of thinking is proven by the current divorce rate. People who are in love, but clearly incompatible are free to marry in our society, but we have seen that it often fails.

Societies with arranged marriages (such as India) are not so strange after this realization. The family, whose judgment is not clouded by emotions or hormones, can more aptly decide what qualities of the bride and groom are best matched for each other and the community.

romance vs. common sense

In traditional countries where people depend on relatives to survive, it is definitely risky to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic interest.

The advantage of being in an arranged marriage is that communities benefit from each other. For example, in primitive societies where the state is weak or absent, different communities might depend on each other to attain necessary elements for survival. Hypothetically speaking, if one community had an abundant supply of crops but did not have enough water supply to go around, and another community had an overflowing reservoir but were lacking in food, then a marriage might be arranged between members of both communities in order to share the goods.
The primary purpose in arranging a marriage is based on pragmatic reasoning and how much a family can benefit from another and vice versa.

In conclusion, communities of weak or absent states depend on each other to survive. If you are depending on your family to take care of you and help you to meet the basic challenges of survival, then it would be unwise to decisively marry someone based on love IF your family did not gain anything from the marriage.

1) Yes, marrying solely for love in a region where survival often depends on who one is related to can be dangerous. As already brought up, if the family of the person who is not allowing them to arrange their marriage does not approve, they will not support the person marrying just out of love. This can be because the family feels disrespected by not being given the choice to marry off their children, or because they would not raise in social or financial status. In my world religions class last year, I learned about arranged marriages in India and the parents who were marrying off their children were very concerned about the potential couple's compatibility and benefits both financial and emotional (If they know their daughter is working hard on her career, they will not marry her off to a man who wants to start a family right away, etc). In these societies, risking the support of one's family can risk support of one's future children and their status.

2) For a couple to remain unmarried in our society, but still have children, it is not always a big deal. A woman can have any job a man can and be able to raise a child on her own, as can a man do it. Child support is also enforced, making the raising of children sometimes difficult on the family, but not impossible. In other cultures, it may not be as easy. A woman can not always have the same salaries and jobs that men can; and sometimes she may be looked down upon, along with the child. The woman may not be able to provide for the child in the same way she would if she had a husband, creating challenges in raising him or her.

Marriage for Love or Marriage to Prosper

To me it seems marriage in a state that is weak or absent is a factor of survival not love. In the reading where the woman read Shakespeare in the bush, the tribe's people thought it was magnificent that Hamlet's mother married his uncle. To them if he hadn't it would have been hard for her to survive without a man in her life. Not only did the men think so but also the women.

It is also common knowledge that a century or two in the past a family would have on average a larger amount of children. Many children in those days meant that your farm or homestead would be well taken care of and that your crops would be plentiful.

Now days marriage for love is popular and those who don't believe in love or haven't found it do not pursue marriage. A co-worker of mine was in love, had a child with that woman but they broke up before ever getting married. From that experience he has denounced love and marriage and also refuses to have any more children. He loves his daughter but his lifestyle negates any reason for him to have more. I believe the reduced amount of farming as well as the well known over population crisis are huge factors for people not wanting kids or marriage.

There are a couple examples, however, of marriage to prosper in present day. Still children are a non-issue, they may have one or two but it is unpopular to have anymore then that. The Clinton family is clearly a marriage built around their political careers, if they were not in any public offices that marriage would have ended long ago.

If that is not enough I'll tell you of my girlfriend's bosses. Her bosses are a married couple that own a small restaurant but the love and effection that a married couple shows for one another, even simple pecks on the lips are never witnessed. Ever. The wife always says she would murder him if she had the chance. The husband simply ignores her and even tends to enjoy the company of other men. Although much of this is speculation everyone on their staff and even their customers notice that their marriage is for the business and not much else.

Can a Gift Be Free?

After reading the gift I found it interesting how people feel obligated to give a gift just the same as someone would feel obligated to receive it. The notion that refusing a gift being "an act of war" is a bit harsh but I can see how the action could offend someone. In my own family it is customary to keep a gift once it is given to you. It is offensive if you ask for a gift receipt or attempt to exchange an item for something you really need or want. When I have my own family I plan to stop this non-sense. As long as an individual gets what they really need or want thats all that matters because to me the giving and receiving gifts is not the real importance as much as the fellowship of my family and friends is.

But is the gift free? I would have to say no. At the time it is received yes it is very much so but to the person giving the gift they expect that down the line the act be returned in their favor. Some examples include birthdays, fathers/ mothers days, christmas and any "once in a lifetime" occasions such as graduations and weddings. To believe a gift is free is an illusion because gift giving is a cycle just the same as gift receiving. One day it will be you turn to give a gift to you friend then a few months down the road it will be your turn to receive a gift from that very same friend.

One ritual that I despise in all of this mess is the practice of purchasing cards for an individual. Why is this necessary? It is only necessary if you are not going to see the individual because they are out of the country or live in another state. If you are going to a birthday party and set a card on a table with your gift the giving act becomes a bit redundant. But thats only me because I feed the Hallmark machine as little as possible.

If you are thinking that my poor girlfriend won't be receiving a card on Sweetest Day then you are correct. But fear not I have something up my sleeve for the occasion, I have to, around the same time is our anniversary. After which I'll be looking forward to Christmas. .wink.

love and marriage go together like a man and a rickshaw

With the divorce rate being as high as it is, it seems as though most couples get married for alternate reasons other than love anyhow, so the topic of discussion is not too far off from today's society. The question asked was whether or not it would be a good idea to marry for other reasons besides love to help you meet your basic needs of survival. I know people who marry for so many reasons that don't involve love, the two main reasons being money, and children. If you were to marry someone simply because they had money, couldn't they help you meet your basic needs of survival with all of their money? And if you had children and decided to get married, having a husband there to help take care of the baby would also be another way of ensuring your ability to survive, two is always more helpful than one.

It doesn't seem like too many people take marriage very seriously nowadays anyways, they just get married because they believe that the emotions they are experiencing at the time are "love". Most are too young to realize that they are much too young and naive to even understand what they are doing, what the severity of marriage entails if it happens to not work out. In theory, you should always be able to depend on yourself to survive, you shouldn't have to need someone there every step of the way to support you; but undoubtedly most people always believe they need someone else, whether it for moral or money support.

I don't think it's a bad idea to take other factors into account before getting married, to the contrary I actually think it is vital for something to actually workout. There are many other factors that make marriages work, such as trust, friendship, loyalty, etc., but never is it simply because you just can't handle life on your own. In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong; countries where the state is either weak or absent and therefore depend on relatives to help them meet the basic challenges of survival doesn't sound too far off from the U.S.

Love and Marriage.

I believe marrying for love is more important than marrying for any other reason.  I do see, however, how marriage can be financially, and in many others ways, very stabilizing.  Marriage was invented by someone for a good reason and I think that if it wasn't an important part of every society, it wouldn't be incorporated somehow into almost every culture throughout the entire world.  Although I believe love should be the core of marriage, I see how in some cultures marrying for the legal aspect or for help around the house can be very beneficial.  In many agricultural societies, for example, marriage is a way to ensure that the farmer always has plenty of help running the farm.  Similarly, in polygamist marriages there are many reasons significant to that culture for a man to have multiple wives.  For example, he is much more likely to have a male heir and/or to have more help from his children and wives, etc.  Whatever the reason, it is beneficial in that society.

It makes sense that marriage is important in any society for the financial and legal steadiness.  It is apparent that, in most cases, being married with children is much easier on the parents and the children than a couple being unmarried with children.  It is easier for a married couple to raise and fulfill the needs of their children financially than it is for a single parent.  However, being married without love seems to me to be almost regressive because if a child is raised in a home where the parents do not love each other, that child more often than not grows up understanding a warped sense of what love is.  And it is important for a couple to care for one another while they go through all of the hard times they will have to endure as parents and as human beings in general.  

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

I believe that marriage is an issue that can be argued in many different ways.  I am a firm believer in marriage for the "love" sake, but I also feel that it is vital for survival within humans.  Our society is different than most and we have an issue with sharing.  We were suppose to learn it at a young age, but apparently it never stuck with us.  It's hard to survive without the help of families but some people do it (like I do) and I'm just fine most of the time, but someday I would like to share my life with a significant other and have a family.  I also feel that marriage, along with children, is a good way to teach our children of the future how both (man and woman) sides of the world work and work together.  Some people take it too too far when it comes to marriage though.  Of course, in our society, people who are of older age get looked down on because they haven't found that right person...SO WHAT?  Once again, this blog has made me realize how ridiculous we all act.  People in other parts of the world who don't really look at marriage as a necessity work together as families or communities but they seem just fine by that.  I'm not saying marriage isn't a big deal, but I feel the American society has made it the way it is today.  Just because of what we have done to the word "marriage" there are some of us who are so scared of it that it will never be a part of our lives.  You should be happy to find that special someone and to commit to them and not ruin your relationship because it's the "end of your life."  It should be the very beginning of your life.  Just another chapter to enjoy.

I truly believe that survival should be second on the list with marriage.  It defeats the whole purpose of respect and dignity, but that's just my opinion.

Marriage for Survival

I think marriage is not just for binding two people in love but rather a way to support two people, or two families, together. I am a strong supporter of arranged marriages because many of my relatives have been in a set-up marriage. In countries where this is popular the divorce rate is obviously much lower because they look at marriage as combining two families, and not just two people. Marriage is not based on their own satisfaction but more on their parents. Marriage comes first and then love. By giving away a daughter to someone elses son this creates a relationship amongst the parents which allows support for eachother through the families. Tradionally some people call them "bridesellers" because its kind of like selling a bride. If a family is struggling they may decide to give their daughter away in marriage which could lead to an opportunity of her marrying into a wealthy family. This way the family is letting go of their daughter but receiving a higher status, more wealth, and stronger realtionships.

Now if a couple in love from a tradition family like this decided to get married, not arranged or without approval, they would be completely detached from their family and wouldn't receive any support from their parents. My dad was actually the first person to break the arranged marriages in my family and he married out of love. Although he came from a wealthy family, my dad was cut off from his familyfor a while and had to make a fresh start from nothing. So overall I definitely think it is risk for people living in those situations.

Blog Assignment for Next Week: Marriage

For this week's assignment, then discuss one of the following topics:

1) People in traditional communities in countries where the state is either weak or absent depend on relatives to help meet the basic challenges of survival.

In such societies, would it be risky to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love? Can you imagine other factors playing a role if the long-term survival of your community might be at stake?

2) Many people in North America and Europe choose to have children outside of marriage. Considering some of the major functions of marriage, do you think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage? Under what cultural conditions might the choice to remain unmarried present serious challenges?

To answer these questions, then you will want to take into account the Haviland chapter titled: "Sex, Marriage, and Family."

Conceptualizing "Free Gifts"

In thinking about the concept of giving a "free" gift, I do not believe, on a literal level, that any action goes without selfish intent, whether conscious or subconscious. Human nature is built on a system of wants/needs. Some sort of want is always the basis of a gift.

To argue against that statement, one might say that charitable acts are gifts given freely. Generally speaking, those acts can be labeled as “free,” but taken down to a basic level one who commits acts of charity is satisfying a desire to do “good.” This being said, an exchange occurs; whatever action was committed has been paid for.

The only reason people would like to believe that a gift can be free is because we create moral “codes” in which we live and behave. By “freely” giving a gift, we are only satisfying this inherent need to follow a moral code, whether the source of action is out of compassion, sympathy, religion, law, or society’s opinion of the individual.

No gift is “free.”

There is some good in our hearts...

I believe there is such a thing as a free gift, however I do recognize how it is somewhat rare in our culture. It can be inferred that people only give gifts on Christmas because they are expecting something in return, but what about those who give above and beyond what they know they will receive in return, just out of the desire of their hearts?

Another instance of truly giving a gift is in the everyday life. It is many people's "love language" or way to show affection by giving gifts. This is found when they just randomly find something they want to give to someone because it reminds them of that person. It is simply a way to show that one is thankful for another, not a way to receive something in return.

And a final example is found in giving people money on the streets or for a local charity. Some people know they will never receive that money back, but choose to give it to a helpless cause because they want to help the common good. Of course some people will give and expect karma to take its place and somehow give them a return for their gifts, but I believe some people are truly selfless enough to give and not receive.

All good things are wild and free

This whole idea that this is "no free gift" really bothers me. Who says gifts have to be tangible? The greatest gift I've ever received was my nephew, is he not a gift? Or another that I hold nearly as dear was simple guidance on my first camping trip...these are gifts right? If you want to get right down to the nitty gritty then sure, these things cost something, whether it be 10 hours of labor or a considerable amount of patience.

As far as the tangible gifts go, I do agree that the majority of people who give gifts are only doing it on certain religious holidays they probably never acknowledge any other time of the year, such as christmas or easter. And this is sad. I personally could not care less about such holidays. They are one of america's lovely ways it earns a considerable amount of money every year by convincing ignorant citizens they must buy something. Some stores are only open for the christmas season which can drag in so much money it need not be open year round. I'm guilty also of giving into this unreasonable holiday, but I like to think that I don't buy into as much as everyone else does. It's during these holidays that people give and expect to be given to. But who likes the dreadful feeling that they must get something for someone, or even who they should get something for just because the other person will probably buy something for them?

I think we as a people need to not focus so much on religious holidays to give gifts, but instead, if we're going to give gifts have it be only out of the intention to see a smile on the face of someone we care about. I also think we should be giving more gifts of meaning, maybe gifts that some people don't consider gifts at all, just acts of kindness... as Thoreau once said, "all good things are wild and free".

Second LIfe

I watched this BBC documentary the other night on the future. At about the eleven minute mark there is a really interesting look at the culture of second life and the repercussions it may have on the rest of our society. I highly recommend watching the whole series, although I don't agree with where technology is going its defiantly important to be aware of how drastictly are world is about to change. To find the other two parts just type Visions of The Future part (and then 2 or 3).

To Give Is To Give

I can't speak for other cultures but within ours no gift is completely free. Most gifts exchanged in our culture our purchased or made from purchased goods. In these situations many people had to sacrifice time and labor in order for you to receive what ever it is you wish to pass on. You also had to work in order to receive money which you had to exchange to purchase the goods. And even if you pulled an Andy Goldsworthy and make your gift entirely from objects found in nature, you are still giving your time to make the gift.

Most gifts are not given altruistically. Many times gift are given to pull emotional strings and tighten bonds. Other times gifts are given out of guilt. In short people will often give gifts to feel better about themselves or make someone feel better about them (although this might not be the gifts only intent).

I think gift giving is one of our cultures low points. In most cases gifts are given at set times of the year, in many cases tied to religions that many don't even practice. The focus is placed on obligations so that companies can achieve the highest profits. Our culture's gift giving is tied more to economics then to traditional custom. But I guess individuals serving large multi-national corporations is an American custom :(

No Gift is Free

No gift is 100% free, which is why gifts should be less obligated at events common in our society (birthdays, weddings, graduations, etc). Whether someone has gone out and purchased a tangible gift, or given their time and companionship to a dear friend, nothing can be given without some sort of sacrifice. One must put forth effort, currency, skill, or time in order to give a gift.
A toaster cannot just be given out of nothing, just like friendship cannot just be given out of nothing. Someone had to work for the money and then spend it on the toaster, or someone had to spend lots of time and effort on building the friendship. This money or this time could have been used on anything, but choosing to spend it on another makes it special. That isn't to say that giving a loved one a gift on an important day for them, such as their graduation or confirmation, is not kind. I just do not think that gift-giving should be so expected and forced.
How special is one gift to a child on Christmas if they have 20 others? Giving them the one gift that they truly want would be more appreciative and less spoiling. I think that maturing and understanding the amount of time we have in life, and the value of a dollar makes a gift more special. We can learn to appreciate the price that person has paid to somehow celebrate another.

No Gift is Free

In our present day society there exists a certain amount of expectation placed the idea of "gifts". For the majority of the time, gifts are expected to be given or received. There are the cases of birthdays, holidays, and personal celebrations, which are preconceived and reciprocal. If you give someone a present for their birthday, you might expect one back when your time comes around. There are also the cases of gift giving that are completely spontaneous, but quite often gifts act like bribery specimens.
I don't think that there is such thing as a "free gift". There is always some ulterior motive other than the fronted generosity. For example, when companies give out "free gifts", more often than not they are trying to spread free advertising. In many instances, people use gifts, both big and small, in order to get other people to reciprocate their generosity by helping them out in one way or another. Political lobbyists would be a prime example of this type of gift giving.
In my own experiences growing up in a Chinese family, I celebrated Chinese New Year where I would receive red packets of money call hong bao's as gifts from all the adults. When I was younger, I did not understand the dynamics placed on the gift giving. When I got older I began to understand that it was just a way for the older generation to ensure that they are taken care of when they age. I don't mean to imply that there is always this overbearing negative connotation to gift giving, but simply, that no gift is truely free.

The Gift Elephant in the Room

Gift giving in America has typically become a dreadful experience. Christmas shopping, birthday shopping, going to the mall, ugh. But it doesn't have to be that way. Gift giving can be joyful and fun, the way it is supposed to be!

My family has a tradition where every year around Christmas time my whole family (around 50 people) cram into my house for a weekend of family fun. We catch up with each other's lives, play games, and eat a lot of casseroles. My favorite activity that we do is the White Elephant Gift Exchange. A lot of people do this differently, but this is how my family does it. Every takes something from their house (no purchasing things from the store!) and wraps it up as a gift. The crazier/more useless the item the better! Everyone gets a number. Whoever has number 1 gets to choose a gift from under the tree. Number 2 can choose a gift, or steal number 1's gift. We don't open any of them until the end of the game, so it is fun to trade and steal boxes that have unknown contents. At the end of the game everybody laughs about what is inside the wrapping paper, but the real gift is the fun we have as a family.

Nothing in this world is FREE!

Gifts...Gift's can be defined in many different ways.  In the American society, we have actual days of the year that we all expect gifts.  Christmas and birthdays are the worst.  We are suppose to be celebrating "life" but instead we all want to kill ourselves because we feel obligated to use all our hard earned money on someone we care about, then we suffer for awhile to get our lives back on track.  In my opinion, I would rather not receive anything because we all know that the other person is expecting something back.  If we don't get them anything, then well....they are somewhat sad and start throwing a fit because of what they didn't get. Give me a break.  I do believe in getting people gifts that they can use everyday or that is very practical.  We spend so much time trying to out-spend each other but we always, always, always, forget what the true meaning of it all is.  I believe that "Kwanzaa" is the way to go.  Kwanzaa is an African American and Pan-African holiday celebrated between Christmas and New Year.  Reason being, you celebrate Christmas without any materialistic things interrupting your day, you only give gifts if you can afford them so you don't put yourself in a jam, the dates between Christmas and New Year are so you hit the sales that all the department stores have, and finally you only buy gifts that are useful in educating the mind, body, and soul of an individual.  It's clean cut and dry and to the point.  That's just my opinion though.  Even when your parents buy you a toy when you are little that involves sports, for instance, they still expect you to use whatever they bought so they can see some form of progression.  That is still not FREE.  There is no such thing as an unselfish good deed.  We still feel better about ourselves in the end!

I believe that there is a such thing as a free gift- but maybe that's just because I'm cheap. Sure, when I was younger I would always expect gifts at special events like my birthday or Christmas, and I'd reciprocate the gifting because it was polite- but more so because it was not coming out of my own money but instead my parents'. Back then, I never had to worry about what to get someone for their birthday or bar/bat mitzvah or wedding or whatever because money was not an issue. Times have changed, however, for now I am as broke as college students come, and in the rare occasion that I do get someone a gift it must be for a really good reason. This might sound selfish, but then again, when did giving gifts become so mandatory?

Not all gifts are free. Of course, if a friend gets you something really, really nice for your birthday then you are morally obligated to get them something equally nice for their birthday. If you don't get them anything, that's probably really rude of you and you should feel bad about the fact that your friend wasted lots of money on a friendship that they believed to be worth more than you. But wait a minute... friendship can't be measured in gifts. If it is, you're in a pretty shallow relationship for all the money you're spending on gifts. Then again, if you have the money, heck, go for it. You might get something really special in return.

I'm biased because I literally have no money to buy anyone any gifts these days. I'll make someone a gift if they really mean a lot to me. Otherwise, fuhgeddaboudit. Call me rude, call me inconsiderate, whatever. I would do just fine without receiving another tangible gift as long as I live if it meant I didn't have to worry about the stressful obligations of gift giving. Take Christmas for example. Who actually enjoys Christmas shopping? Maybe some people do but that is the last thing I would want to look forward to on a freezing cold day in December in a whirlwind of crazy holiday shoppers and their obscene materialist appetites.

We shouldn't give gifts because we are obligated to. We should give gifts because we want to, not because we expect something in return.

a gift for a gift

Whenever anyone mentions free stuff I can’t help but perk up a little, but there’s usually always some kind of catch or an expectation for you to give something in return. Last Wednesday for example I went grocery shopping at Jewel’s and right when I entered this guy shoved some poster of Chicago into my hand and told me it was free but when I walked away he started asking me to sign up for this newspaper for only $1. Since he had given me this free poster he expected something in return-a gift for a gift. I kept walking though and I did make it out with a free poster but in a way I still felt obligated to sign up for the newspaper. Giving gifts has turned into a way to get what you want. Even as a child I used gift giving for the sole purpose of getting something in return. Whoever gave you a gift for you’re birthday you would automatically get them a gift for their birthday even if you didn’t like them, and vise-a-versa. Also, depending on what they gave you would determine if you got them a cool gift or just a generic gift. I don’t like getting gifts a lot of the times because I feel like I have to repay that person in some way.

generally I do not think that there is any such thing as a free gift, but I do think that there are some exceptions depending on who is giving you something and what it is. When I left for Chicago one of my good friends gave me this little star wars toy to take with me and even though it’s something silly it means a lot to me because it reminds me of back home and all my friends and all the crazy fun times we had together. That’s probably one of the only times when I received a gift and I didn’t feel obligated to give back something in return.

To give a gift or not give a gift... that is the question...

In this society in which we live in there is no such thing as a "free gift". Whether it's a birthday parties, weddings, baby showers, graduation parties and other holidays, gifts are given as obligation. With obligation, gifts can be given to express rank or provoke jealously amongst others. Like America's traditions, the article refers to two other tribes that share similar reasoning's for giving gifts.

"America Northwest, Melanesia and others, where emulation is more moderate but where those entering into contracts seek to outdo one another in their gifts."

Sharing the holiday's with a mother and father whom are divorced will find that competition between gifts is likely. This results into their childhood choosing whom they like more based on the value of a gift. Like the tribes in the article, gift giving has resulted into killing one another. While giving gifts can cause controversy, so can receiving them. Like the article states,

"To refuse to give, to fail to invite, just as to refuse to accept, is tantamount to declaring war; it is to reject the bond of alliance and commonality."


In the household I've grown up in, when receiving gifts as a child I would be greatly appreciative. As I've grown up I've veered away from personally expecting gifts. I do give gifts only to a few of my loved ones with only good intentions.

What goes around, comes around.

I think there is such thing as a free gift.  However, very rarely does someone receive a free gift.  I say this because I would consider a free gift to be something that is given to someone by a person who has absolutely no expectations of receiving anything in return.  Unfortunately, we don't come across many people willing to do this.  

I would also consider kindness and love to be a free gift.  When someone loves someone else unconditionally, they often care for them despite maybe not receiving the same affection in return.  It is rare, too, to find someone who is kind to someone else because of unselfish reasons. Many times it seems as though people are kind to others in hopes of receiving some sort of recognition.  

More often than not, we read stories in the newspaper or hear stories on television of the horrible and selfish things people do.  Even as a child, these stories always made me so sad to think that people could be so evil to one another.

My mother told me a true story a few years ago that really (I know this sounds lame) gave me hope that there are still people out there that are kind and genuinely loving.  The story she told me is this: 

A man was driving down the highway on a cold and very rainy evening and saw an elderly woman pulled over to the side of the road due to a flat tire.  He pulled off the road to help her.  he cheerfully and efficiently changed her tire for her and gave her the number of a place where she could get the tire fixed.  The woman was very appreciative and insisted on giving him some money in return for his troubles.  The man told her that it was no trouble at all and to keep her money.  He told her the best way for her to pay him back was to do something kind for someone else.  The man left and the woman was very touched by his kindness.  On the way home, the woman stopped at a small diner to warm up and get something to eat.  Her waitress was a young, very sweet and happy,very pregnant woman.  The elderly woman could not stop thinking about what the man had said to her.  So when the woman finished her meal, she paid her bill, left her waitress a generous $100 tip, and left four additional one-hundred dollar bills on the table for the waitress.  The waitress went home later that night, grateful that now her and her husband could pay their rent and buy a crib for the new baby.  She explained to her husband, in tears, how kind it was of the elderly woman to leave her this money.  Little did the elderly woman know, the waitress was the wife of the man who had helped her earlier that morning.

The idea that this man had not asked for anything in return for his kindness, but in the end was still rewarded, solidifies the notion that the things we do, good or bad, will always find their way back to us.  

Free gifts are given to us when we, ourselves, are willing to give free gifts.  To me, this idea is almost comforting and I wish that more people really understood and cared to be sincerely, unselfishly kind.

You can't spend it when you're dead

The saying "time is money", to me, means "I care so much about money that every second you waste of my time means another penny lost". We live in a time where money is never tucked too far back in our brains, especially college kids with bills, rent, tuition, or groceries; when is our life not somehow revolving around money? I can personally say that if I were to constantly spend every moment away from school working, I would surely look back on my college years with regret. After all, these are the years we're supposed to be broke, right? I like to spend my extra time living; Of course I work also, but not as much as I could. I'd rather head to the nearest park with a good book, or pack up my stuff for the weekend and roam around in the woods. To me "Time is living", if we're lucky enough to be alive, we should spend that time doing things we love, things that won't have us laying in our death beds with regret. Money is just money, sure it will get you a few things while you're alive, but you can't buy adventure, or love, and you certainly can't buy life.

Abiding Time

Time gives us structure, it measures each day sunrise to sunset, from week to month to year. It provides us a sense of relative place according to the movement of bodies large and small. The physical concept only applies to thinking creatures. Otherwise, it is simply increments of physical change multiplied by how much change. Times is, above all, a cause of order, so that we know how to adjust our activities based upon constraints within a change according to day light.

Similarly, Muslims, as my friend from Morocco explains, respect a lunar calendar according to which Muslims are asked to pray by the Qu'ran. Prayer times are determined per region of the world according to the movement of the sun, not a clock. This has been a traditionally a constant determinant of prayer times for Muslims and is more specifically calculated by factors like the Earth's orbit, tilt, and rotation.

Adapting to the "American" lifestyle by which Americans life their daily lives is difficult for Muslim people because a number of inherent factors of the lifestyle: work, leisure, meal time, and sleep time are extremey irregular and work can often overwhelm the others. No time is widely allowed to employees in the U.S. for religious ritual. For example, Dell Computer fired 30 Muslims for praying in the workplace (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5554/is_200503/ai_n21850388). It seems from some research that the Workplace Religious Freedom Act was last considered by congress in 2007. The act would give employees whose religion mandates prayer the right to reasonably practice religious rituals as long as they do not "impose an “undue hardship” upon the employer" (http://www.ou.org/public/statements/bg/wrfa.htm).